I am thinking of having my players get wrapped up in a small skirimish to end out our first adventure phase. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? The abstract nature of comabt I think will marry well with something that produces a grander narrative, but I am not sure how best to go about it at the moment.

John if you see this you mentioned somewhere that one of your players had come up with something. Care to share?

Interesting that you bring this up; I was just regaling this awesome product to my best friend last week about him getting it and trying it out with me.

I explained some of the mechanics working (he's a very analytical minded rule-oriented person - he's a lawyer); so he was truly interested in how it all worked.

His one question to me was
"How does it handle large scale mass combats? When I think of LotR, I think of the massive hero vs hordes battles - a small force of 3 heroes faced off against hundreds like at Helm's Deep or Minith Tirith or Aragorn buying Frodo time to get to the River, or Gimli and Legolas yelling out numbers of how many they killed , etc"

I didn't have an answer. But I thought he definitely brought up a good point.

Robert

One way would be to consider smallish units (5-10 men) as heroes/monsters, with a 'body' attribute equal to the number of soldier and a 'heart' value equal to its leader's valour ('wits' as its wisdom?).

Drop a soldier for each 2 endurance points lost?

This would not only imply a larger scale, but a longer round basis (1 round = 1 minute or so). Also, it breaks the fundamental rules that attributes are a non-fluctuating value in TOR.

I'm uncertain as of how this would work given the player-heroes/villains rule disparity.

Glorfindel

I running one next week I hope

from what ive written...

THE GREAT BATTLE OF TELNAEBORN
Massed skirmish involving the gathered host of men, dwarves and a few elves, and over 500 goblins and wolves, with a 'Field Strength of 2'.
• Each player can narrate in turn what he is doing in the battle (inspire, battle, etc) versus an opposed roll of skill:2.
• Each failure costs each party member 2 endurance....
• Anyone becoming weary makes a corruption test due to anguish
• Need number of successes = half party number +1

assuming the party are stll able to fight....

The guards of the goblin lord are down as you make a final push at him, having broken your way through his lines. Galzog looks fierce indeed...

I would (and do) handle mass combat as a backdrop to the personal combats that are going on at a character level. The weight of the battle (ratio of foes:allies) determines the number of foes that the PCs face, and how the PCs do in the combat rounds determine the flow of the battle. The players can make choices for their characters in the midst of the battle going on around them. They can make a speech to inspire the troops around them, wade in to the mass of foes, use their archery to whittle down the enemy. No special rules are then required for mass combat. The combat is handled purely at the character level, with the actions of the PCs influencing the battle around them.

Re-orienting my thoughts a bit.

I like the idea of creating a mass combat subsystem. I still want to treat military units like characters, but it should be like a LM character/monster rather than a player-hero i.e. simpler stat block, single attribute, limited array of skills and distinctive abilities. At the moment, I'm thinking larger units of 30-50 soldiers.

In real-life, a group often acquires some 'qualities' that are not dominant in any of its members. Only traits that are shared by most of its members or displayed by a particularly charismatic leader (even bad-influence, 'negative leaders') surface in a group. For this reason, I don't think it would be unrealistic to make a list of 'unit abilities' for a mass combat sub-system, with masteries or 'cultural virtues' granted by their unit leader (which should be the player heroes).

I'm hesitating between having the number of soldiers in a unit count toward the attribute of the unit or its endurance. Loss of endurance could directly represent loss of soldiers. Having the attribute based on the number of soldier would be unprecedented I thinks, but would represent well the strength of numbers.

The leader would benefit from some plot immunity unless the opponent's leader make a called shot against him/her (which for enemies is triggered by an 'eye' result).

more to come...

On the subject of a mass combat system, I also meant to said this:

Epic battles involving thousands of opponents are a significant part of the Hobbit and LotR. They are quintessential to the epic fantasy genre of Tolkien and while the main characters are often involved in these battles, they rarely take an active role in terms of leadership and command of troops.

True, Legolas, Gimly and Aragorn where present in the battle of Helm's Deep, but participated more on an individual level than leading companies of Rohirim. Even Aragorn is described to go out and battle with Eomer (and perhaps few others) to defend the doors, but in terms of scale, this is more a skirmish set upon on a large battle tapestry.

Again in the battle of the Pelenor Fields, the mains characters are free agents, the rangers being led by Halbarad more than Aragorn, and the men of Pelargir led by their own captains. Even Gandalf is more a mover and assembler of captains than a captain himself. Only in the battle of the Black Gate did Aragorn assume a role of general, but the battle itself was never meant to be one to be won by feats of arms or leadership.

In other words, the story focuses on the skirmishes of the main characters rather than the characters as leaders (or members) of large units. In that light, what jrrtalking is more in the spirit of LotR and the Hobbit than a subsystem involving rules for mass combat.

But personally, I think that the rule should give a bit more than what the story limited itself, as long as the rules encourages the game to remain within the spirit of the story. Thus I'm all for a mass combat set of rules, but I'll be looking for one that stays in line with both the spirit of the rules given to us so far and the story from which the rules have been created.

went rather well

i did a ruddy gandalf dice on all my loremaster rolls for the mass combat so lost fairly easy

players had good time narrating how they led there couple dozen men each to flank, centre etc

I agree wholeheartedly with this, Glorfindel. Each time I've utilized a Mass Combat system, I've already known the outcome of the battle ... this is because they have always been "famed" battles (e.g., The Battle of the Alamo, The First Battle of the Fords of Isen, and the Battle of the Hornburg). As such, I only needed to concern myself with the heroes during the battle. Therefore, I always liked the way GURPS did Mass Combat as it seemed to reflect this philosophy.

For those not acquainted with it, you may read about it at http://www.sjgames.com/gurps/Roleplayer/Ro...ombat-Land.html

See the Consequences to Player Characters section about half-way down the page. When I need to do a Mass Combat, I intend on adapting this ... again.

I had to deal with a mass combat situation in a campaign I started a couple of weeks ago. There was a large force of Beornings and Woodmen up against an army of goblins, wargs, and trolls. I didn't utilize units or any special rules, but I simply narrated the battle and zoomed in on what the heroes were doing. This is what I like about TOR...the rules aren't so complicated that they get in the way of the story and fun.

However, if I were to make up some rules for generating outcomes, I would start by assigning each side an overall Attribute level, Combat skill rating, Parry rating and Endurance.

Attribute level is a reflection of power, will, and cunning. It will be used as a bonus to attack rolls, added to damage when a great or extraordinary success is rolled, and to calculate Parry rating.
Combat skill rating should be between zero and 6, reflecting the training of the forces. This will be used to determine Combat advantage, initiative and to make attacks rolls. NOTE: The charts on p. 26 of the LM's Book should serve as a guide when assigning Attribute level as well as Combat skill rating.
Endurance measures the overall size, armor, and resilience of the forces. When this number reaches zero, they are defeated. Endurance can range anywhere from 5 up. As a rule of thumb, give 5 points for every division (50 units), a 1 point bonus for each division with superior armor, and a 1 point bonus for each division containing hearty troops. You can easily double these amounts for divisions of 100 units, etc.

Each round of mass combat represents 1 hour of battle.

1. Heroes determine Combat advantage by rolling Combat skill against a TN of 14. If they are successful, they gain 1 extra Combat skill die to use over the course of the battle. A great success grants 2 extra dice; an extraordinary success grants 3.

2. Determine initiative by rolling Combat skill. Whichever side rolls the highest and with the greatest number of successes determines initiative.

3. Heroes declare tactics by choosing between Aggressive, Smart, and Careful. These are the same as Forward, Open, and Defensive stances in personal combat and will determine the TN for attacks and Parry (Aggressive TN 6, Smart TN 9, and Careful TN 12). Add the defender's Attribute level to determine Parry rating. For example, the Beorning army decides to aggressively attack a slew of Warg-riding Orcs with an Attribute level of 6. They will have a TN 12 to hit (Aggressive TN 6 + Attribute level 6).

4. Make attack roll by rolling Combat skill dice, the Feat die, and adding the attacker's Attribute level. A successful attack means the size and power of the opposing force will shrink (Endurance loss) during the hour.

5. Determine damage according to the result of the attack roll. If it was a normal success, then 1 point of Endurance is lost. If it was a great or extraordinary success, then add the attacker's Attribute level to the damage.

Victory comes when one side flees for fear of decimation or when one side reaches zero Endurance.

Player-heroes can affect the outcome of the war each hour as they fight key battles. The Loremaster sets up a scenario and offers the heroes one of the following choices if they overcome it: A. Damage the enemy by 2 Endurance points; B. "Weary" the enemy for the next hour (they may not count 1s, 2s, or 3s on their Combat skill dice); or C. Gain a Combat advantage die for their side.

I don't have a solution, just a thought - I think we'll probably get official Mass Combat rules (maybe in the next release), but they weren't covered in this one because the focus is more on the PCs leaving home for the first time to have adventures (like The Hobbit).

I'm not sure exactly what the future releases have in store, but I wonder if battlefield / fortress siege combat would come into play in the next core release or the final one.

I wonder.

Even in the Lord of the Rings, focus is never put on large scale combat, even if large scale combat takes is an important theme from the battle of Helm's Deep and on.

Instead, large scale combat is used to depict the background's tapestry, but focus remains always on the main characters in small (and relatively isolated) arenas. Think Aragorn and Eomer protecting the gate of the hornburg, Eowyn and Merry slaying the witch-king, Pippin felling his troll at the battle of the gate of the Morannon. It seems that focus is kept on the 'PCs' even if all around, battle rages on.

When main characters are involved in large scale battle (Eomer leading the charge of the Eorlingas after the fall of Theoden, Imrahil at the head of the knights on the Pelenor Fields, Aragorn leading the men of Pelargir), the pace of the narration quickens and doesn't dwell on specific actions.

What Tolkien seems to like however, was to narrate how the tides of battle could change and how morale (hope, courage, control, inspiration, despair from fear or motivation form fear) influenced the outcome of a battle even more than skill and tactics.

Therefore, if a mass combat system is to be put up, I believe it should mainly focus on special events, influence of morale, inspiration of troops and the actions of Player-Heroes in small arenas. It seems that in the spirit of the Hobbit and LotR, the 'how' isn't very important unless it pertains to what the heroes manage (or fail) to accomplish in the small roles that they are given.

At first I was envisioning how units could emulate Loremaster characters but in retrospect, I don't think it fits the spirit of the Lord of the Rings (and by extension, TOR's system).

Glorfindel

... on the other hand, the system leaves a door open for larger scale battles with the Battle skill, explaining how it can be used to ambush another army etc.

As you say, time will tell us.

... that or Francesco.

Glorfindel

I agree completely with the main focus of a gaming session being on player-heroes and how they can influence the overall battle. Their story is the most important part of the fun! Maybe a suggested list of Battle encounters for Loremasters to choose from would be appropriate, much like Hazard options during journeys. Player-heroes would need to complete the Battle encounter to gain a benefit for their side or lose ground. Something like Take The Hill where heroes must take command of a key outpost, giving their side Combat advantage or Kill the Leader where heroes have an opportunity to eliminate an important source of inspiration, whereby decreasing the morale of the enemy and lowering their Attribute level. How about Take No Prisoners where the heroes face a large amount of soldiers, but if they can eliminate them they reduce the opposing side's Endurance points. In each one of these Battle encounters, if the player-heroes fail, their side suffers the loss.

All of this happens right in the middle of a raging war, of course. Unless the Loremaster wants to determine the overall outcome solely on how successful the player-heroes are in their Battle encounters, rules for the battling sides (which are Loremaster characters) are needed.

Using the rules I created in my previous post, both sides would have an Attribute level, a Combat skill rating, and Endurance. Every hour (round) of battle, each side gets a chance to attack the other and reduce their Endurance until there is victory. Battle encounters give the player-heroes a unique way to affect the battle.

Also, because of the brutality of war and exposure to the Shadow, Loremasters may want to consider making the player-heroes roll Corruption checks every hour.

I agree with your recommendation that the horror of war compels the player-heroes to make corruption tests.

If, however, a battle extends beyond the first hour (as in your example), this seems a bit tough for them to endure.

While traveling through the Dark Lands player-heroes have to test twice daily - would this rule seem to emphasize the horror of battle & still keep the balance?

That's probably a good rule. Perhaps twice a day is better than every hour. I like the comparison between a mass battle and a journey from the perspective of a player-hero.

Thank you James. I've been reading your rules for mass combat again, & you've done a great job with a difficult topic. I haven't used them yet, but I suspect that if the time arrives, I'll probably have a go with a battle using your rules.

Thanks Mim. I haven't tried my rules yet either, as I just wrote them after my last session! I suspect that Francesco and team will be giving us some official rules in future supplements, which will be far superior and play-tested. I can't wait for those!

Until then, I am going to try out my own rules. If you have any suggestions for Battle encounters or ways the heroes can affect the battle, please post them.

I just wanted everyone to know that I updated my Mass Combat Rules document today. Just a few corrections and a style change - nothing major. You can now access my docs by following the link in my signature to my blog site.

I like what GURPS did with Mass Combat, and also I tend to use the flavor from Star Wars d6:

When there is a Mass Battle, the Player Characters are at the key of some but not all decision points for the battle.

Thus their resolution of encounters, hazards and the like determine a large part of how the battle goes.

- They must cut the ropes of a key rope bridge or else the orc horde that arrives in moments can take a flanking position on the main army.

- As in the fiolms, a key set of doors must be held for X number of rounds, or the keep is flooded with enemy.

- A heroic leader is surrounded and wounded, and must be saved, or else after the battle, there is a power vacuum in the land.

- a line of enemy catapults will rain flaming death upon the army, unless a few key bow shots holds them off, or somehow sets their own weapons alight.

For each thing, have a drastic alternative, that makes the end game battle that much harder, but keep the focus on the characters.

Anything that is happening 500 vs 750 in the background, pre-determine it, and just describe it, and move back to the players, don't game it out, or game it out beforehand.

One nice technique I saw yars ago was for a game called Twilight: 2000. Relatively realistic vehicle rules for modern tanks and vehicles had this kinf of procedure, broken into 10ths of a second for an RPG hitting a vehicle, what does it destroy, who is killed, who is wounded, who is on fire.

But it was undramatic, and un film-like in that it took long minutes while players waited to see what was going to happen.

So this author in Challenge magazine said have a set of 10 index cards, or a computer program set up to instantly calculate, if an Armored personal carrier is hit by an RPG from the front, these are the things that happen, rolled out 10 different times. Thus, just pre-determine who is sitting where, before the game, then
Rocket Hit...WHOOSH. BOOM

Card # 5 - Driver, you are hurt, Guy # 2 you are bleeding out of the neck, Guy # 3, you are fine, Gunner, you are blown off the roof....the thing is burning. What are you all doing?

So it's pre-determined technical results, that are front-loaded to be delivered to players instantly on demand.

If you knew the route ahead of time, at the end of the last session, you could use this to sort of determine a lot of the flavor for next week, or have cards of hazards handy.